Waltham Forest

Growing anger over asbestos find at school

MORE than 170 parents and family members have signed a petition saying they have lost confidence in the council over its handling of an asbestos discovery at a school.

St Mary's Church of England Primary in The Drive, Walthamstow, was due to move to the former Warwick School site in Brooke Road in September as part of a £3 million scheme to expand and treble its intake.

But the project was aborted at the last minute after traces of the toxic fibre were discovered during preparatory building works.

It came after three classes and 18 staff from St Mary's had already relocated to the site early in September 2011, but the council has always insisted that it is "considerably unlikely" that any children would have been exposed prior to the works beginning.

Parents have now demanded answers and a resolution to the "chaos", condemning the council as incompetent and failing to keep families properly informed.

Tensions have run so high that the council claimed an unnamed councillor's car was vandalised and covered with copies of the petition, although parents have strongly criticised the person responsible.

Meanwhile the council has responded to the petition by saying that the cabinet member for children and young people, Cllr Clare Coghill, had apologised that "the high expectations the local authority has set have not been met in this instance".

Some of the children who were meant to be relocated to the Brooke Road are being sent by buses to the former Edinburgh Primary School site instead.

The council's letter admits it could have improved its communication with parents, that the situation is "not ideal" and that taking children to Edinburgh Primary had the potential to increase the risk to pupils' safety because of an increase in traffic around the site.

But it said it was trying to mitigate this by suspending the parking bays outside the school to allow buses to stop right outside it.

The petition by parents alleges that the council ignored independent advice in April 2011 to put an asbestos management plan in place for the site.

It claims the council failed to do so prior to the discovery of the toxic fibre exactly a year later in April 2012.

Campaigners also claim the fiasco has cost the council at least £70,000 per half term - just for transporting children from The Drive site to Edinburgh Primary.

The council says it does not know when children will be able to move into the Brooke Road site.

The government's Health and Safety Executive (HSE) is currently investigating the council over alleged failures to manage asbestos in Waltham Forest Town Hall.

In 2010 the council was criticised by the same agency for failing to manage asbestos properly at four other Walthamstow schools.

Cllr Coghill said in a statement: “Our prime concern is providing high quality education to the children of Waltham Forest.

"The asbestos find at the new school site has created a tremendous hurdle that we are working with the school to overcome.

"At present we expect the school to be open to all students by September 2013 and we are doing everything we can to enable this to happen."

She added: “I have valued being able to work with the school and speak personally to parents about this. We will continue to work hard to deliver excellent school facilities for the borough’s children.”

A spokesman added that the council was considering placing some extra classes at The Drive site rather than at Edinburgh School in the near future.

Cornbeefur wrote:
There is asbestos in many old buildings and the last people to consult are the Council after they found documents covered in the stuff in the Town Hall Basement.

Good job no-one did

[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote:
There is asbestos in many old buildings and the last people to consult are the Council after they found documents covered in the stuff in the Town Hall Basement.[/p][/quote]Good job no-one didE17_er

Whilst I agree there are many buildings in Waltham Forest with asbestos in them, there are rules and regulations that have to be followed regarding public safety.
If I were a relation to either one of the children or member of staff attending the school I would insist on the council coming clean and being completely transparent in advising the truth and nothing but the truth. This should include the type of asbestos and in what form it is in (dust. fibres or ?).
I would also request a copy of any report an asbestos specialist may have issued to the school or council within the last 2 years. This will establish exactly how this situation has arisen and whether the council have acted correctly. Any failure by the council to comply with such requests will demonstrate they may have something to hide.
Please also understand that asbestosis takes time (sometimes many years) to develop after initial exposure.

Whilst I agree there are many buildings in Waltham Forest with asbestos in them, there are rules and regulations that have to be followed regarding public safety.
If I were a relation to either one of the children or member of staff attending the school I would insist on the council coming clean and being completely transparent in advising the truth and nothing but the truth. This should include the type of asbestos and in what form it is in (dust. fibres or ?).
I would also request a copy of any report an asbestos specialist may have issued to the school or council within the last 2 years. This will establish exactly how this situation has arisen and whether the council have acted correctly. Any failure by the council to comply with such requests will demonstrate they may have something to hide.
Please also understand that asbestosis takes time (sometimes many years) to develop after initial exposure.Don't Give Up

All schools are supposed to be inspected for hazards on annual basis, sometimes more often, and that includes regular asbestos checks. Every school has to have a Health Safety Annual Report which includes a question about its asbestos plan and checks carried our in line with it.

Not only did Warwick School inhabit the building for many years, work was done to make it fit for Walthamstow School for Girls to occupy it while its own buildings were being extended and refurbished. Further work was carried out so that the first phase of children from St Mary's could move in last year.

Personally, I find it almost impossible to believe that any competent surveyors could have missed the asbestos in all that time.

None of us know just what type of asbestos (white, blue or brown) is in there, but the Brooke Road site has been cordoned off and swathed in plastic sheets since August and no-one has been allowed in. That included staff who wanted to collect records.

In all the scandals that have been rocking the council for the past few years, this one must be high on the list.

In addition to what Don't Give Up suggests above, I wonder if the parents should be taking a case to the Local Government Ombudsman. The council is failing to give a full answer to all the questions, including whether staff and children at all three schools which have been in that building have been at risk of exposure to asbestos fibres.

All schools are supposed to be inspected for hazards on annual basis, sometimes more often, and that includes regular asbestos checks. Every school has to have a Health Safety Annual Report which includes a question about its asbestos plan and checks carried our in line with it.
Not only did Warwick School inhabit the building for many years, work was done to make it fit for Walthamstow School for Girls to occupy it while its own buildings were being extended and refurbished. Further work was carried out so that the first phase of children from St Mary's could move in last year.
Personally, I find it almost impossible to believe that any competent surveyors could have missed the asbestos in all that time.
None of us know just what type of asbestos (white, blue or brown) is in there, but the Brooke Road site has been cordoned off and swathed in plastic sheets since August and no-one has been allowed in. That included staff who wanted to collect records.
In all the scandals that have been rocking the council for the past few years, this one must be high on the list.
In addition to what Don't Give Up suggests above, I wonder if the parents should be taking a case to the Local Government Ombudsman. The council is failing to give a full answer to all the questions, including whether staff and children at all three schools which have been in that building have been at risk of exposure to asbestos fibres.Helen, Walthamstow

Helen, Walthamstow wrote:
All schools are supposed to be inspected for hazards on annual basis, sometimes more often, and that includes regular asbestos checks. Every school has to have a Health Safety Annual Report which includes a question about its asbestos plan and checks carried our in line with it.

Not only did Warwick School inhabit the building for many years, work was done to make it fit for Walthamstow School for Girls to occupy it while its own buildings were being extended and refurbished. Further work was carried out so that the first phase of children from St Mary's could move in last year.

Personally, I find it almost impossible to believe that any competent surveyors could have missed the asbestos in all that time.

None of us know just what type of asbestos (white, blue or brown) is in there, but the Brooke Road site has been cordoned off and swathed in plastic sheets since August and no-one has been allowed in. That included staff who wanted to collect records.

In all the scandals that have been rocking the council for the past few years, this one must be high on the list.

In addition to what Don't Give Up suggests above, I wonder if the parents should be taking a case to the Local Government Ombudsman. The council is failing to give a full answer to all the questions, including whether staff and children at all three schools which have been in that building have been at risk of exposure to asbestos fibres.

They do not 'miss' it. They take calculated 'risks'.

Most of the time Asbestos is safe unless it is move, disturbed or turned to dust.

[quote][p][bold]Helen, Walthamstow[/bold] wrote:
All schools are supposed to be inspected for hazards on annual basis, sometimes more often, and that includes regular asbestos checks. Every school has to have a Health Safety Annual Report which includes a question about its asbestos plan and checks carried our in line with it.
Not only did Warwick School inhabit the building for many years, work was done to make it fit for Walthamstow School for Girls to occupy it while its own buildings were being extended and refurbished. Further work was carried out so that the first phase of children from St Mary's could move in last year.
Personally, I find it almost impossible to believe that any competent surveyors could have missed the asbestos in all that time.
None of us know just what type of asbestos (white, blue or brown) is in there, but the Brooke Road site has been cordoned off and swathed in plastic sheets since August and no-one has been allowed in. That included staff who wanted to collect records.
In all the scandals that have been rocking the council for the past few years, this one must be high on the list.
In addition to what Don't Give Up suggests above, I wonder if the parents should be taking a case to the Local Government Ombudsman. The council is failing to give a full answer to all the questions, including whether staff and children at all three schools which have been in that building have been at risk of exposure to asbestos fibres.[/p][/quote]They do not 'miss' it. They take calculated 'risks'.
Most of the time Asbestos is safe unless it is move, disturbed or turned to dust.Cornbeefur

Helen, Walthamstow wrote:
All schools are supposed to be inspected for hazards on annual basis, sometimes more often, and that includes regular asbestos checks. Every school has to have a Health Safety Annual Report which includes a question about its asbestos plan and checks carried our in line with it.

Not only did Warwick School inhabit the building for many years, work was done to make it fit for Walthamstow School for Girls to occupy it while its own buildings were being extended and refurbished. Further work was carried out so that the first phase of children from St Mary's could move in last year.

Personally, I find it almost impossible to believe that any competent surveyors could have missed the asbestos in all that time.

None of us know just what type of asbestos (white, blue or brown) is in there, but the Brooke Road site has been cordoned off and swathed in plastic sheets since August and no-one has been allowed in. That included staff who wanted to collect records.

In all the scandals that have been rocking the council for the past few years, this one must be high on the list.

In addition to what Don't Give Up suggests above, I wonder if the parents should be taking a case to the Local Government Ombudsman. The council is failing to give a full answer to all the questions, including whether staff and children at all three schools which have been in that building have been at risk of exposure to asbestos fibres.

They do not 'miss' it. They take calculated 'risks'.

Most of the time Asbestos is safe unless it is move, disturbed or turned to dust.

Cornbeefur, note the use of the word "competent" in the sentence above.

I think they really did miss it, rather than taking calculated risk, because several school surveys in the last year (not just in Brooke Road) have demonstrated incompetence.

No sane and able surveyor would overlook asbestos in a school even if they might in a domestic situation.

[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Helen, Walthamstow[/bold] wrote:
All schools are supposed to be inspected for hazards on annual basis, sometimes more often, and that includes regular asbestos checks. Every school has to have a Health Safety Annual Report which includes a question about its asbestos plan and checks carried our in line with it.
Not only did Warwick School inhabit the building for many years, work was done to make it fit for Walthamstow School for Girls to occupy it while its own buildings were being extended and refurbished. Further work was carried out so that the first phase of children from St Mary's could move in last year.
Personally, I find it almost impossible to believe that any competent surveyors could have missed the asbestos in all that time.
None of us know just what type of asbestos (white, blue or brown) is in there, but the Brooke Road site has been cordoned off and swathed in plastic sheets since August and no-one has been allowed in. That included staff who wanted to collect records.
In all the scandals that have been rocking the council for the past few years, this one must be high on the list.
In addition to what Don't Give Up suggests above, I wonder if the parents should be taking a case to the Local Government Ombudsman. The council is failing to give a full answer to all the questions, including whether staff and children at all three schools which have been in that building have been at risk of exposure to asbestos fibres.[/p][/quote]They do not 'miss' it. They take calculated 'risks'.
Most of the time Asbestos is safe unless it is move, disturbed or turned to dust.[/p][/quote]Cornbeefur, note the use of the word "competent" in the sentence above.
I think they really did miss it, rather than taking calculated risk, because several school surveys in the last year (not just in Brooke Road) have demonstrated incompetence.
No sane and able surveyor would overlook asbestos in a school even if they might in a domestic situation.Helen, Walthamstow

It's a side-step from the present issue, but why is the Council vacating and giving up a purpose-built school in The Drive, when there's a massive shortage of primary school places?

The main question here is not about the inconvenience and upset to those children who have not yet moved in to Brooke Road but, as Helen points out, those thousands of children the Council allowed to attend school there for many years, while what seems to have been an acknowledged hazard was ignored.

It's a side-step from the present issue, but why is the Council vacating and giving up a purpose-built school in The Drive, when there's a massive shortage of primary school places?
The main question here is not about the inconvenience and upset to those children who have not yet moved in to Brooke Road but, as Helen points out, those thousands of children the Council allowed to attend school there for many years, while what seems to have been an acknowledged hazard was ignored.mdj

I'm not sure which part you are asking "why?" about, so I'll try to respond to both parts!

St Mary's is moving because, like many other primary schools in Waltham Forest, it is expanding quite dramatically to help absorb all the extra children. I'm not quite sure about the statistics at St Mary's, but I think it is going up from three forms of entry to 6FE. As I understand it, there is not enough room on its current site to accommodate new buildings and still leave enough play and recreation space. If you think of it, an 6FE primary school with 30 children per class will eventually have 1260 pupils on site, not including any nursery!

If you are asking why the new free school (based on the Emmanuel Christian Centre in Erskine Road) has been granted The Drive site, I can't answer except to say that the council can't under Gove's regulations turn down a request from a free school to take over a redundant school site. I'm not involved with St Mary's so I don't know if the freehold belongs to the diocese or the council.

[quote][p][bold]mdj[/bold] wrote:
I know, Helen, but why?[/p][/quote]I'm not sure which part you are asking "why?" about, so I'll try to respond to both parts!
St Mary's is moving because, like many other primary schools in Waltham Forest, it is expanding quite dramatically to help absorb all the extra children. I'm not quite sure about the statistics at St Mary's, but I think it is going up from three forms of entry to 6FE. As I understand it, there is not enough room on its current site to accommodate new buildings and still leave enough play and recreation space. If you think of it, an 6FE primary school with 30 children per class will eventually have 1260 pupils on site, not including any nursery!
If you are asking why the new free school (based on the Emmanuel Christian Centre in Erskine Road) has been granted The Drive site, I can't answer except to say that the council can't under Gove's regulations turn down a request from a free school to take over a redundant school site. I'm not involved with St Mary's so I don't know if the freehold belongs to the diocese or the council.Helen, Walthamstow

St. Mary's was originally a one form entry school (with one bulge year of two forms). Just before Easter 2011 we were told that we were becoming a 3 form entry school from September 2011. Originally reception and year 1 were to be at Brooke Road from September 2011 however due to building works running overtime it was just reception that started. The whole school was meant to be at Brooke Road by September 2012. During the academic year 2011-2012 it became obvious that it would not be ready for the whole school so the decision was made that Brooke Road would take the (current) year 1 and reception pupils while years 2-6 would remain at The Drive for the academic year 2012-2013. Then just before the end of the summer holidays letters were sent out to parents saying it would not be ready and so year 1 and reception would be at the old Edinburgh site until half term. Except Edinburgh wasn't ready and year 1 would spend the first two weeks at The Drive with reception starting school at St. Gabriel's church hall (the council asked to school to delay the start; the school refused). Half term has been and gone, as have hopes to start in January and Easter. We have now been told that the earliest Brooke Road will be ready is September 2013. No one is putting any money on that either. Is there no end to the chaos?

St. Mary's was originally a one form entry school (with one bulge year of two forms). Just before Easter 2011 we were told that we were becoming a 3 form entry school from September 2011. Originally reception and year 1 were to be at Brooke Road from September 2011 however due to building works running overtime it was just reception that started. The whole school was meant to be at Brooke Road by September 2012. During the academic year 2011-2012 it became obvious that it would not be ready for the whole school so the decision was made that Brooke Road would take the (current) year 1 and reception pupils while years 2-6 would remain at The Drive for the academic year 2012-2013. Then just before the end of the summer holidays letters were sent out to parents saying it would not be ready and so year 1 and reception would be at the old Edinburgh site until half term. Except Edinburgh wasn't ready and year 1 would spend the first two weeks at The Drive with reception starting school at St. Gabriel's church hall (the council asked to school to delay the start; the school refused). Half term has been and gone, as have hopes to start in January and Easter. We have now been told that the earliest Brooke Road will be ready is September 2013. No one is putting any money on that either. Is there no end to the chaos?Mysterymum

Thanks for amending the information Mysterymum. Though I know several schools in the borough are going up to 6FE I didn't really know the numbers at St Mary's (and was too lazy to look them up!)

This is a truly scandalous situation and we must sympathise with the staff, parents and children at St Mary's who have been let down so badly.

One thing I do know is that some families diverted to other schools when they found out what was happening at Brooke Road and about children being bussed to the old Edinburgh building.

I truly believe it is time the LA and Cllr Coghill issued a full and frank statement of the whole picture, including what action is being taken to investigate how the surveys failed, what type of asbestos is in the building and how widespread it is, and what steps are being taken to remedy the situation.

Thanks for amending the information Mysterymum. Though I know several schools in the borough are going up to 6FE I didn't really know the numbers at St Mary's (and was too lazy to look them up!)
This is a truly scandalous situation and we must sympathise with the staff, parents and children at St Mary's who have been let down so badly.
One thing I do know is that some families diverted to other schools when they found out what was happening at Brooke Road and about children being bussed to the old Edinburgh building.
I truly believe it is time the LA and Cllr Coghill issued a full and frank statement of the whole picture, including what action is being taken to investigate how the surveys failed, what type of asbestos is in the building and how widespread it is, and what steps are being taken to remedy the situation.Helen, Walthamstow

The council and/or Cllr.Coghill should also explain a number of other things including how Romanian workers had access to work there in the full knowledge they had insufficiet training in working with asbestos.

The council and/or Cllr.Coghill should also explain a number of other things including how Romanian workers had access to work there in the full knowledge they had insufficiet training in working with asbestos.Don't Give Up

Helen, Walthamstow wrote:
All schools are supposed to be inspected for hazards on annual basis, sometimes more often, and that includes regular asbestos checks. Every school has to have a Health Safety Annual Report which includes a question about its asbestos plan and checks carried our in line with it.

Not only did Warwick School inhabit the building for many years, work was done to make it fit for Walthamstow School for Girls to occupy it while its own buildings were being extended and refurbished. Further work was carried out so that the first phase of children from St Mary's could move in last year.

Personally, I find it almost impossible to believe that any competent surveyors could have missed the asbestos in all that time.

None of us know just what type of asbestos (white, blue or brown) is in there, but the Brooke Road site has been cordoned off and swathed in plastic sheets since August and no-one has been allowed in. That included staff who wanted to collect records.

In all the scandals that have been rocking the council for the past few years, this one must be high on the list.

In addition to what Don't Give Up suggests above, I wonder if the parents should be taking a case to the Local Government Ombudsman. The council is failing to give a full answer to all the questions, including whether staff and children at all three schools which have been in that building have been at risk of exposure to asbestos fibres.

They do not 'miss' it. They take calculated 'risks'.

Most of the time Asbestos is safe unless it is move, disturbed or turned to dust.

Cornbeefur, note the use of the word &quot;competent" in the sentence above.

I think they really did miss it, rather than taking calculated risk, because several school surveys in the last year (not just in Brooke Road) have demonstrated incompetence.

No sane and able surveyor would overlook asbestos in a school even if they might in a domestic situation.

It's not a question of whether the surveyors missed it, the question is whether the council either. a) commissioned a survey prior to current works or b) failed to look at historical surveys and facts prior to starting recent works.

The main point here is obviously asbestos exposure to children, staff and construction workers but to dismiss the current situation as mere inconvenience is short sighted and disrespectful, if you were a parent or close to the school you would know there is a lot more to it than that, that's the council's view.

Long term there seems to be little planning for the growing number of children coming into the borough yet continue to race through house planning applications. There's an empty school behind Lloyd Park that's layed dormant for a year (or 2), I wonder if they'll wait until kids are in there before refurbishing.

[quote][p][bold]Helen, Walthamstow[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Cornbeefur[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Helen, Walthamstow[/bold] wrote:
All schools are supposed to be inspected for hazards on annual basis, sometimes more often, and that includes regular asbestos checks. Every school has to have a Health Safety Annual Report which includes a question about its asbestos plan and checks carried our in line with it.
Not only did Warwick School inhabit the building for many years, work was done to make it fit for Walthamstow School for Girls to occupy it while its own buildings were being extended and refurbished. Further work was carried out so that the first phase of children from St Mary's could move in last year.
Personally, I find it almost impossible to believe that any competent surveyors could have missed the asbestos in all that time.
None of us know just what type of asbestos (white, blue or brown) is in there, but the Brooke Road site has been cordoned off and swathed in plastic sheets since August and no-one has been allowed in. That included staff who wanted to collect records.
In all the scandals that have been rocking the council for the past few years, this one must be high on the list.
In addition to what Don't Give Up suggests above, I wonder if the parents should be taking a case to the Local Government Ombudsman. The council is failing to give a full answer to all the questions, including whether staff and children at all three schools which have been in that building have been at risk of exposure to asbestos fibres.[/p][/quote]They do not 'miss' it. They take calculated 'risks'.
Most of the time Asbestos is safe unless it is move, disturbed or turned to dust.[/p][/quote]Cornbeefur, note the use of the word "competent" in the sentence above.
I think they really did miss it, rather than taking calculated risk, because several school surveys in the last year (not just in Brooke Road) have demonstrated incompetence.
No sane and able surveyor would overlook asbestos in a school even if they might in a domestic situation.[/p][/quote]It's not a question of whether the surveyors missed it, the question is whether the council either. a) commissioned a survey prior to current works or b) failed to look at historical surveys and facts prior to starting recent works.
The main point here is obviously asbestos exposure to children, staff and construction workers but to dismiss the current situation as mere inconvenience is short sighted and disrespectful, if you were a parent or close to the school you would know there is a lot more to it than that, that's the council's view.
Long term there seems to be little planning for the growing number of children coming into the borough yet continue to race through house planning applications. There's an empty school behind Lloyd Park that's layed dormant for a year (or 2), I wonder if they'll wait until kids are in there before refurbishing.Antonk

Antonk, the old Aveling Park School behind Lloyd Park will be used for the Hillyfield Academy expansion from September next year.

It would have been in use already if the governors from the Chapel End Infant and Junior Schools had agreed to amalgamate two years ago. The site was offered to them for expansion on that condition.

Antonk, the old Aveling Park School behind Lloyd Park will be used for the Hillyfield Academy expansion from September next year.
It would have been in use already if the governors from the Chapel End Infant and Junior Schools had agreed to amalgamate two years ago. The site was offered to them for expansion on that condition.Helen, Walthamstow

Helen, Walthamstow wrote:
Antonk, the old Aveling Park School behind Lloyd Park will be used for the Hillyfield Academy expansion from September next year.

It would have been in use already if the governors from the Chapel End Infant and Junior Schools had agreed to amalgamate two years ago. The site was offered to them for expansion on that condition.

I wouldn't bank on that one being ready either. LBWF do not seem to learn from past mistakes.

[quote][p][bold]Helen, Walthamstow[/bold] wrote:
Antonk, the old Aveling Park School behind Lloyd Park will be used for the Hillyfield Academy expansion from September next year.
It would have been in use already if the governors from the Chapel End Infant and Junior Schools had agreed to amalgamate two years ago. The site was offered to them for expansion on that condition.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't bank on that one being ready either. LBWF do not seem to learn from past mistakes.Antonk

Helen, Walthamstow wrote:
Antonk, the old Aveling Park School behind Lloyd Park will be used for the Hillyfield Academy expansion from September next year.

It would have been in use already if the governors from the Chapel End Infant and Junior Schools had agreed to amalgamate two years ago. The site was offered to them for expansion on that condition.

I wouldn't bank on that one being ready either. LBWF do not seem to learn from past mistakes.

Agreed!

[quote][p][bold]Antonk[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Helen, Walthamstow[/bold] wrote:
Antonk, the old Aveling Park School behind Lloyd Park will be used for the Hillyfield Academy expansion from September next year.
It would have been in use already if the governors from the Chapel End Infant and Junior Schools had agreed to amalgamate two years ago. The site was offered to them for expansion on that condition.[/p][/quote]I wouldn't bank on that one being ready either. LBWF do not seem to learn from past mistakes.[/p][/quote]Agreed!Helen, Walthamstow

If your first reaction to any problem is in terms of public relations and narrow political calculation, then I'm afraid no learning will take place.

The true sadness is that the council's endless emphasis on reputation management quite predictably produces the inverse of what is intended - in the corridors of Whitehall and City Hall, not sympathy and influence, but derision

Thus, we suffer the worst of all worlds.

To learn from past mistakes, you have to first acknowledge them.
If your first reaction to any problem is in terms of public relations and narrow political calculation, then I'm afraid no learning will take place.
The true sadness is that the council's endless emphasis on reputation management quite predictably produces the inverse of what is intended - in the corridors of Whitehall and City Hall, not sympathy and influence, but derision
Thus, we suffer the worst of all worlds.NT

NT wrote:
To learn from past mistakes, you have to first acknowledge them.

If your first reaction to any problem is in terms of public relations and narrow political calculation, then I'm afraid no learning will take place.

The true sadness is that the council's endless emphasis on reputation management quite predictably produces the inverse of what is intended - in the corridors of Whitehall and City Hall, not sympathy and influence, but derision

Thus, we suffer the worst of all worlds.

Well said.

Derision and anger amongst the residents of the borough too. Their attempts at positive PR would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that workers, school staff and children could become fatally ill due to their incompetence and gross negligence.

What's surprising (or maybe not) is that in this case there are some relatively new senior representatives in Education that have swiftly adopted this tired attitude of disdain towards residents of the borough.

[quote][p][bold]NT[/bold] wrote:
To learn from past mistakes, you have to first acknowledge them.
If your first reaction to any problem is in terms of public relations and narrow political calculation, then I'm afraid no learning will take place.
The true sadness is that the council's endless emphasis on reputation management quite predictably produces the inverse of what is intended - in the corridors of Whitehall and City Hall, not sympathy and influence, but derision
Thus, we suffer the worst of all worlds.[/p][/quote]Well said.
Derision and anger amongst the residents of the borough too. Their attempts at positive PR would be laughable if it wasn't for the fact that workers, school staff and children could become fatally ill due to their incompetence and gross negligence.
What's surprising (or maybe not) is that in this case there are some relatively new senior representatives in Education that have swiftly adopted this tired attitude of disdain towards residents of the borough.Antonk